Appeal 2007-3245
Application 11/153,772
1 the rules or in jurisprudence requires trier of fact to credit unsupported or
2 conclusory assertions).
3 In any event and in contrast to Applicants’ arguments, Kain describes
4 all contacts 7 shown in Fig. 2 as being flexible and curved, whether power
5 blades or data terminals (Kain 4:47-59 and 5:23-29). Kain describes 9a as
6 the power contacts and 9b as the signal contacts (FF 6). The arrangement of
7 9a and 9b tends to support the Examiner’s findings that 6 is a power blade
8 connector, not a data connector. Note, that in Fig. 1 and on the back of the
9 mating connector 2 are power contacts 9a. Those contacts are in line with 6
10 of Fig. 1. This is in contrast to the terminal or signal contacts 9b, which are
11 aligned with other portions of the connector 1. For these additional reasons,
12 Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
13 Lastly, Applicants argue that the connector 6 of Fig. 1 looks like a
14 Molex data connector part number 51089, attached as “Exhibit B” (FF 8).
15 The evidence is not persuasive of what Kain describes. That there may be
16 some similarities between the Molex data connector and the connector
17 shown in Fig. 1 of Kain does not mean that the Kain connector 6 is a data
18 connector. Applicants’ have provided no supporting evidence to
19 demonstrate that the Kain connector is a data connector, or that the Kain
20 connector is the same as the Molex data connector.
21 For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of the claims 1-3.
22 E. Decision
23 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
24 Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013